Consensus Statement on Age of Initiation of Anabolic Use

[Zyglamail]

Here are my thoughts on the subject for what they are worth. This is a very hard issue to quantify since everyone is so much different.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1.) The athlete should have reached full physical stature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On this aspect I totally agree, however no two people are alike so how can we actually set a static number? I know myself I was a late bloomer and grew pretty much up to the age of 21. Now, there are many pro's and cons to stating the age of 21, for many that is too late in their college carear for them to benefit from AAS us and simply not acceptable. I think this issue has to be handled individually case by case if this aspect is to be aheared to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2.) The athlete should have reached, or nearly reached, his genetic potential for muscular development.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again while this looks good on paper I dont feel its very realistic since we can likely make continued gains and progress until mid to late 30's without the aid of AAS, at this point when normal hormone levels start to decline so will what we have worked for. I think far too many people think a few years, or even 10 years of dedicated training will take us to our limit. I honestly feel we can grow and advance until our bodies no longer allow it due to a decline in natural hormones.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 3.) The athlete should have a very thorough and detailed knowledge of lifting technique, dietary practice, recuperative processes, and hormonal and nonhormonal supplementation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This would definatly be an ideal situation but once again hard to quantify. We all learn at differing paces and what a dedicated intelligent individual can learn in 6 months may take another 2 years. Access to study material can also have a huge impact on the rate at which one can learn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 4.) The athlete should be socially and psychologically mature, firm enough in purpose, and balanced enough in approach, that he or she understands how and when not just to initiate use of anabolics, but how and when to curtail or abandon use should that need arise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This to me is more important than all the rest. I see far too many unstable people using aas. We see talk of anxiety, depression etc etc on the boards everyday. Many seeking advice or knowledge on antidepressants. Now, I feel anti depressants have theri place, but strictly from a physical health standpoint I feel their use should NOT be combined with AAS, they often times put extreme stress on the liver. From the mental stndpoint AAS use causes wildly fluctuation hormone levels and often times wildy fluctuating mental state. Only those capable of handling this should be allowed to proceed with AAS use. Would this prevent a lot of current users from using? Likely it would but then again if many of these people put the effort into dealing with their mental porblems that they do their physical appearance and prowess, they likely woundt have mental problems for very long.

All in all I think its very hard to come up with a standard for steroid use. I cant sit here and say they should only be reserved for elite or close to elite athletes any more than I can sit here and say plastic surgery or liposuction should be reserved for celebrities. The fact of the matter is we all have our own reasons and why should someone be disauaded if their goal is strictly appearance? I simply think the most important issues are knowledge and mental well stability. I see people every day who have the training background and knowledge yet simply lack mental stability.

[archive_Ulter]

Bjaarki you'll have to help me out here if this is not the proper protocol but I want to sign off on part of Zyg's post. I know this is about age but these posts bother me as much as they do Zyglamail. With all due respect to my very good friend Fukkenshredded. I don't think ANYONE at any age should mix AAS with an unstable emotional/mental state. For the reason he listed.

"This to me is more important than all the rest. I see far too many unstable people using aas. We see talk of anxiety, depression etc etc on the boards everyday. Many seeking advice or knowledge on antidepressants. Now, I feel anti depressants have theri place, but strictly from a physical health standpoint I feel their use should NOT be combined with AAS, they often times put extreme stress on the liver. From the mental stndpoint AAS use causes wildly fluctuation hormone levels and often times wildy fluctuating mental state. Only those capable of handling this should be allowed to proceed with AAS use. Would this prevent a lot of current users from using? Likely it would but then again if many of these people put the effort into dealing with their mental porblems that they do their physical appearance and prowess, they likely woundt have mental problems for very long."

[archive_Bjaarki]

Your post is well within "Consensus Statement Protocol." Remember that when we develop a Consensus Statement in medicine or the sciences, they lock us in a hotel meeting room in Rockville Maryland for about 3 days, everyone talks, goes over and over the same points, agrees, disagrees, whatever. It's useful to know that you support Zyglamail's point. I wish more of the posts would directly address things in other posts. That's how we can emulate the Rockville MD method.

I was thinking of editing the threadstarter today, try to put together a "second draft" of the CS. What I would do is keep in the point about full physical stature, change the point about "have reached full genetic potential" to something just recommending that the athlete should have achieved a significant amount of mature muscularity, keep in most of the stuff about training- and gear-based knowledge, and probably put even more stress on the "social and psychological maturity" idea. I don't know what to do, yet, about recommending a specific age - the group seems pretty split on that. So I was thinking of specifying a mimimum age of 21, but also putting in language that indicates that in many cases the other requirements will not have been met until the mid-20's.

There will be some guys who disagree with this but, again, that's okay, we're seeking consensus, not unanimity.

Do you think we're ready yet for a second draft? The posts to the original draft seem to have slowed down quite a bit.

One more point, prompted by something Zyglamail said:

We don't have to be able to specify or operationalize everything in the CS. We can say that the ahtlete should have achieved a "significant amount of mature muscle mass" without specifying what that means. We can leave a lot up to the individual's interpretation. That's okay. In fact, it preferable, since it allows for the issue of individual differences that many here have spoken to.

Bjaarki

[archive_Ulter]

No wait until tommorrow. Monday is our busiest day.

[archive_Killer]

I have been following this thread and agree with much that has been said. One thing we must keep in mind is that this CS is just a general guidline. I think most of us realize that someone isn't going to see 21, and say 'Well, I guess I have to wait 2 years." If we all followed the rules, this board would not exsist.

I totally agree with Zyg's post. Actually, I was thinking about that yesterday. How many of us know someone who gets extremely depressed post-cycle? So depressed that they quit working out and are gone for 3 months? Mental stability is def part of the equation.

I do not think any of us would disagree with the points made about
A foundation of strength and muscle
Knowledge of proper nutrition and trial (maybe actually try to diet to see what it is all about before jumping on a cutting cycle)
Knowledge of the body's systems and functions

This thread has def been thought provoking.

[SteelPreacher]

some real progress being made


and if they approach us..I..I..I bury those cockroaches

[archive_Bjaarki]

Thanks for your input, Killer. I would not have considered this thread very complete without your thoughts.

I'm going to wait another day, then edit the threadstarter to conform to (most of) what has been said here. So, check back tomorrow sometime. We'll leave it up for awhile to see what other comments there might be, then firm it up one more time.

Gentlemen, please do some more thinking about this "age requirement" thing. I've not gotten the kind of guidance I need. I've posted above what my intention is to handle it, but I've not gotten your consent. What I want to say is something like "Bearing in mind significant individual differences in maturation and readiness, it is recommended that the athlete reach the age of 21 before3 considering anabolic use, though many athletes will not have the requisite knowledge, muscular foundation, and social maturity to support anabolic use until the mid-20's."

IS THAT OKAY????? You gotta tell me, guys. I'm just the freakin' secretary here.

This CS is, as you say, Killer, just a "guideline," not a law. It represents a common voice of our best thinking about what prospective gear users should have accomplished before they hit themselves with their first dart.

Bjaarki

[Q]

I also agree with everything that Zyg said, as for a minimum age I will not agree with anything except 18 for legal reasons. If you were no longer a minor at 16, I would say that some (very few, but some) 16yr olds would be candidate for gear, assuming they were professional athletes, especially were excess height can become an issue. ex a gymnast.

21 is way to old to make a minimum for a athlete.

How about this, 18 for an athlete who is willing to risk future problems for an advantage in their given sport. 25 for any recreational users.

Q

[Fonz]

The age requirement should always be 18.

I agree with Mr. N there.

If the person in question is old to enough to vote
then he/she has the right to make his/her own decisions. Including the use of AAS.

Below 18 is unacceptable, because the parents are their respective legal guardians, and could get charged for their offsprings use of AAS.

Fonz

No Pain....No Gain.....No Spain

----Barcelona 1992

[gtaman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I agree. I'm turning 21 this month and did my first cycle when i was 19. Do I regret it? NO! Am i an athlete? probably not in the sense your talking about it. Why did i do it? to look better at THIS age, not when 28. At 28 i hope i'll be married and won't need to do this (other then maybe hormone replacement a little later on, no cycles then). I do it to look good now, to compete in clubs today and not in 8 years when i'll be done with that scene.

- harddtime

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This kind of argument isn't far removed from the argument that "I'll use rec drugs now and who cares how I feel when I'm over 30, since I can't imagine ever getting to that age and I'll probably be dead anyway."

Do you really believe that you'll be able to "stop" when you're 28 just because you get married?

More likely, you'll need juice more, because without it, after 8 years of hard juicing through the prime of your physical and hormonal life, you'll feel like a fat bag of shit while off.

Once you get to 30 you'll see that this young person's narrative of perfect bodies and wild times, followed by settling down, losing your hair, looking like the King of Queen's, and not chasing women anymore, is a complete farce.

When you see life more realistically as a continuum you'll realize that what you want when you're 35 is not so different. You will still want to look appealing to the opposite sex. Physically you will have less capacity to do so without AS.

The only thing you're doing by starting young and juicing steadily is you're going to create a psychological and to some extent physical dependency on AS; you're going to lose hair; you may have permanently impaired sexual function; and realistically speaking, you may have shortened your life and the only thing you'll have to show for it is a fat wife, some fat kids, a fat ass of your own?

No my friend, you'll be juicing when you're 30, too.

You might be juicing when you're 50, if you last that long.

How can you be so sure you'll stop? Will your interest in having big biceps and a ripped physique just disappear all of a sudden?

Do pro wrestlers EVER stop? Hell, Rick Flair even looks like he's back on the juice. It's just proof that you can get addicted to the kind of physique that AS produce so readily when used in high doses.

Now the question is, did you fuck yourself psychologically and physically by starting so early and relying so heavily on the drugs?

[Q]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gtaman:

This kind of argument isn't far removed from the argument that "I'll use rec drugs now and who cares how I feel when I'm over 30, since I can't imagine ever getting to that age and I'll probably be dead anyway."

Do you really believe that you'll be able to "stop" when you're 28 just because you get married?

More likely, you'll need juice more, because without it, after 8 years of hard juicing through the prime of your physical and hormonal life, you'll feel like a fat bag of shit while off.

Once you get to 30 you'll see that this young person's narrative of perfect bodies and wild times, followed by settling down, losing your hair, looking like the King of Queen's, and not chasing women anymore, is a complete farce.

When you see life more realistically as a continuum you'll realize that what you want when you're 35 is not so different. You will still want to look appealing to the opposite sex. Physically you will have less capacity to do so without AS.

The only thing you're doing by starting young and juicing steadily is you're going to create a psychological and to some extent physical dependency on AS; you're going to lose hair; you may have permanently impaired sexual function; and realistically speaking, you may have shortened your life and the only thing you'll have to show for it is a fat wife, some fat kids, a fat ass of your own?

No my friend, you'll be juicing when you're 30, too.

You might be juicing when you're 50, if you last that long.

How can you be so sure you'll stop? Will your interest in having big biceps and a ripped physique just disappear all of a sudden?

Do pro wrestlers EVER stop? Hell, Rick Flair even looks like he's back on the juice. It's just proof that you can get addicted to the kind of physique that AS produce so readily when used in high doses.

Now the question is, did you fuck yourself psychologically and physically by starting so early and relying so heavily on the drugs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, do you not use AAS? Personally I think AAS should be a life choice. A person who does 1 cycle a year will be far healthier then the person who doesn’t exercise at all. My desire to use AAS has in the past motivated me to keep lifting, to eat right, not to drink so often, not to smoke, not to use rec drugs. All in all I am a healthier person because of them and I hope I continue to use them to a ripe old age.

Q

[archive_Bjaarki]

..... but that's cool, that's why we want to have this debate now, so we can air it all and then speak, to the extent possible, with a "common voice" on this issue of obviously intense interest.

I will post a revised CS for your review and comment tomorrow morning. Please look for it, and post your remarks.

I appreciate what Q and Fonz have said about "If you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to do gear," but I continue to find that argument completely beside the point. We're trying to let prospective users know when, in our considered opinion, they are physiologically and psychologically mature enough to handle large exogenous doses of sex hormones. How that connects to voting age, drinking age, driving age, or the age for any legal right or privelege, is beyond me. I'm sorry, but it's completely irrelevant. Most of the guys seem to be favoring an older age anyway. 21 seems about average. I favor a much older age myself, as you all know very well - I don't think people should mess with gear until their late 20's - but I'll compromise, that's what Consensus Statements are all about. But ... 18? I can't see that, and doubt very much that that view is held by more than a small minority.

Just a heads up that 18 will not be in the CS revision, and won't be unless everyone goes apeshit on me.

Bjaarki

[Q]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bjaarki:
We're trying to let prospective users know when, in our considered opinion, they are _physiologically and psychologically mature enough _ to handle large exogenous doses of sex hormones. How that connects to voting age, drinking age, driving age, or the age for any legal right or privelege, is beyond me. I'm sorry, but it's completely irrelevant. Bjaarki<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's my point, I choose 18 just because at 18 you are legally an adult, but in the end age is irrelevant. No age can be considered the age that all or even most people become physiologically and psychologically mature enough to do gear. Sure you can throw out some number but in the end it is meaningless and not based in science just opinion.

We have to be realistic; we have to think about college sports and the age of the people who play them.

AS I SAID BEFORE, if you are going to post an age make it different for athletes.

Q

[archive_Ulter]

As you have probably figured out by now I've been staying far away from a chronological age on this issue. But I would at this time, like to say, 18 is not old enough. Phuck that voting age and draft age BS. The fact is 18 year olds for most part don't vote. They don't even register. So for the vast majority the right to vote means nothing to them until someone tells them they're not mature enough for something and they they draw it like a gun. I AM OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE. This other "I am old enough to die for my country" BS doesn't fly either. There is a reason they want men at 18 but it has nothing to do with maturity. Just because the Pentagon feels 18 the perfect age to be controlled and maniputlated, and probably have no dependents, doesn't mean they are old enough to die. That's stupid.
18 year olds also make up 7% of the drivers on the road but 15% of the accidents resulting in death. I could go on all night about how well the majority of the 18 year old population handles responsiblity but you get my point.
If you want what I consider to be a more valid point of reference it is the legal drinking age. The age in which the law says you are old enough and mature enough to handle drugs.

This doesn't apply to athletes as I said before.

[Fonz]

I knew this thread was going to come down to:

The 30's and over crowd

Vs

The 20's crowd.

LOL

1. Physical maturity
2. Age: Irrelevant but at least 5 years lifting
experience.
3. KNOWLEDGE

Thats what I look at.

Fonz

No Pain....No Gain.....No Spain

----Barcelona 1992

[archive_MR. BMJ]

I am going to sum up my last post, and make this revised statement short and sweet.

Athletes: Ages 17-18. Because if I have a chance to get a full ride scholarship, you can bet my ass is gonna do whatever it take to get there. This will especially be the case knowing that I cannot make it without them.

HOWEVER....

NON-ATHLETE: I agree with the 21 years of age agreement.

BMJ

[archive_LuckyDog]

I am definately in agreement with Bjaarki and Ulter on this one. There's no way that 18 is even close to being an appropriate age to start for MOST individuals!! I'll tell you what too, I am a part of the twenties crowd, (early twenties too) but I agree that 25 to 28 seems to be a good "early" age to start---agreeing with Bjaarki here. But since this is a Consensus Statement, the very least that I would approve of is 21. Please remember that we are trying to use our collective knowledge to provide a STRUCTURED and RESPONSIBLE guideline for all other AAS users. I feel there are no correlations to the voting, enlistment, drinking age arguments but if we have to put an age down (Which is good for all future users who read this CS-and an idea that I agree with) that 21 is an acceptable age.

And Bjaarki, yes your proposal of "<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "Bearing in mind significant individual differences in maturation and readiness, it is recommended that the athlete reach the age of 21 before3 considering anabolic use, though many athletes will not have the requisite knowledge, muscular foundation, and social maturity to support anabolic use until the mid-20's." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like a very good way to word such a document.

And yes, athletes are the exception (for my own personal beliefs/reasons). Take care.

LuckyDog

Education is a continuous process ending only when ambition comes to a halt.
-Col. R. I. Rees

[This message was edited by LuckyDog on 11-13-2002 at 08:03 AM.]

[Fonz]

Wow, this is a long thread....... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Just needed to say that.

Fonz

No Pain....No Gain.....No Spain

----Barcelona 1992

[archive_Ulter]

Fonz,
Remember when you were a newbie on the board? Remember how you were intimidated and a little nervous about posting and overly cautious about what you would post. Do you recall that feeling? Good.
If a newbie came to you and said, "you've been on the boards so long." "Posting is easy for you and you just don't understand what it's like to be a newbie like me"

THAT's 20 vs 30+

[archive_Bjaarki]

The CS has been revised. Please see top of thread, and post comments below. We've made good progress, but there is still a ways to go. I'm proud of you, brothers.